The NIV challenge

[Jill]

.

[selah]

jaimassee wrote:

I believe the NIV has now surpassed the KJV as the most used Bible in protestantism. How come you don't use the JST? I've attended a handful of mormon meetings (an LDS seminary class at Arizona State being the most recent) and often wondered why they preferred the KJV to the JST.

Hi jaimassee,

What does JST stand for? Are you meaning to say that it is a better translation than the KJV?

I was raised reading the KJV, but started reading the NKJV about eleven years ago. Now, I am becoming more fascinated to read other translations too, but for comparative and contemplative reasons, to compliment or challenge my basic trust in the NKJV and KJV. I still adhere to the teachings of the NKJV and KJV, in that order, because I am slow to change.

I don't like reading the NIV because it is not a translation. I would rather read the older, less obvious text and then, pray about it and gain my beliefs through that process rather than simply take a contemporary man's opinion. Of course, if I take that practice to its logical conclusion, I would read the original documents. Ah! what a dream! I would love to be able to read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic! (and speak Aramaic)

Blessings for you today,
selah*

[Jill]

.

[selah]

Hi selah,

You just caught me editing. JST is The Joseph Smith Translation. And thanks for the tip. If the NIV is not a direct translation of either the Alexandrian Text or the Textus Receptus, I my just stick to the KJV as well.

I never heard of the Joseph Smith Translation. Can you tell me more about it? (How did I miss this with an LDS son and daughter in law? )

As far as the NIV being a translation or not, that is my opinion but may not be the opinion of those who like it.

I'm going to stick with my NKJV and KJV. As a side note, the reason I started using the NKJV eleven years ago is because I believed the young adults in my Bible study (my daughter being one of them--she spoke for her friends preferences...) would be more interested in the scriptures if they didnt have to endure the "thees' and "thous." If it were up to me and me alone, I would be fine with the KJV.

[Jill]

.

[jaimassee]

I don't like reading the NIV because it is not a translation. I would rather read the older, less obvious text and then, pray about it and gain my beliefs through that process rather than simply take a contemporary man's opinion.

Technically, versions taken from the Alexandrian text are older. The 1611 KJV was translated before we had found many of the older texts. The book of Revelation in the KJV wasn't even a translation from original Greek- it was translated from Latin. If you want to stick with an honest, older version go with the NASB. I've always been interested in KJV only folks (my mother and sister being some of them). All of the Greek scholars I've read don't take the Textus Receptus too seriously (Mounce, Boles). And besides this, it's not the language I speak and many of the words don't have their original meanings. You can actually purchase a dictionary for the KJV that has what the words meant back in their original day and a contemporary substitute word. I read only KJV for the first handful of years of my Christian life then the NKJV for awhile then I switched over to the NASB in college and I honestly don't feel like any drew me closer to the Lord any more than the other. In my humble opinion, and it's just an opinion, I see the issue as one that mirrors what the Tibetans went through went they were translating their Bible. They had a revered written language that was very old and respected but very difficult to understand. They also had a common language in which everyone spoke. So the translators had to choose which direction to take and they chose the latter so everyone could understand. I guess it just makes more sense to me to use the language you can understand.

[selah]

jaimassee wrote:

Technically, versions taken from the Alexandrian text are older.

Okay. Is the Babylonian the newer text? (I'm just trying to keep all this strait. )

jaimassee wrote:

The 1611 KJV was translated before we had found many of the older texts

. Oh, is THAT why it was translated first! So are you saying the Alexandrian was found after the KJV was translated?

jaimassee wrote:

If you want to stick with an honest, older version go with the NASB.

New American Standard Bible, right?

jaimassee wrote:

I've always been interested in KJV only folks (my mother and sister being some of them).

I'm not familiar with them as a name, although now that I think about it, my mom being a Seventh Day Adventist all of my life has only read the KJV and probably would say any other is incorrect. Are SDA "KJV only" folks? What do you find interesting about them?

jaimassee wrote:

All of the Greek scholars I've read don't take the Textus Receptus too seriously (Mounce, Boles).

Is the Textus Receptus the "original" that the KJV came from? I think I'm confused.

jaimassee wrote:

And besides this, it's not the language I speak and many of the words don't have their original meanings.

So are you saying the Textus Receptus doesn't have the original words? or the meanings changed? which is it, or is it both? I'm a little confused by that last statement.

jaimassee wrote:

You can actually purchase a dictionary for the KJV that has what the words meant back in their original day and a contemporary substitute word.

This is fantastic! What is the name of the book? Where can I get it? Thanks so much!

jaimassee wrote:

I read only KJV for the first handful of years of my Christian life then the NKJV for awhile then I switched over to the NASB in college and I honestly don't feel like any drew me closer to the Lord any more than the other. In my humble opinion, and it's just an opinion, I see the issue as one that mirrors what the Tibetans went through went they were translating their Bible. They had a revered written language that was very old and respected but very difficult to understand. They also had a common language in which everyone spoke. So the translators had to choose which direction to take and they chose the latter so everyone could understand.

You have a really good point, but I have a problem with it only because I don't trust the "common language" translators. It is hard for me because as raised a Seventh Day Adventist, I was taught that Evangelicals were somehow deceived or dishonest with scripture and interpretation. Aren't Evangelicals the ones who "translated" the NIV? Also of course I was taught that Catholics are wrong since the Pope was said to be the anti-Christ, i.e, 666 on his hat...(etc. etc. the list goes on ). So when I came to Jesus and decided to follow Jesus, I had to deal with those teachings. I see through this conversation that I haven't concluded the issue because to tell you the truth, I don't know "WHO" to trust! Finding the real book of truth and the true God of the Universe has been a monumental undertaking in my life! Although I have accepted Jesus, and like you I think my relationship with the Lord is close no matter what the nuances of scripture, still, I desire to be as close to truth as possible.

A very good example (to me anyway) of how scriptural understanding can change the way a person lives their life is the word "kingdom." To a Seventh Day Adventist, the "kingdom" is heaven, a far away place that we are getting ready to go to, but as I have understood the word "kindom" and "dwelling place," I realize that the text referring to "kingdom," "mansion," and "dwelling place" are leading the reader to live in Jesus' kingdom now, in thought, word and deed!

Wouldn't that be radical if every Christian lived on earth as if we were ambassadors of an invisible kingdom that has already been established upon earth?

This is just one example of how understanding text better can help to change an approach to life, or an attitude about life or actions in life.

[Jill]

.

[SteveF]

Hi Selah, I hope Jaismassee doesn't mind, I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Okay. Is the Babylonian the newer text?

I think you mean Byzantine and yes they are newer texts from the medieval period. The Alexandrian texts are from the first few hundred years of the Church.

Oh, is THAT why it was translated first! So are you saying the Alexandrian was found after the KJV was translated?

Actually there were several English translations before the KJV. Yes, the Alexandrian texts were found long after the KJV was translated.

New American Standard Bible, right?

Yes, I'm sure that's what Jaismassee meant.

I'm not familiar with them as a name, although now that I think about it, my mom being a Seventh Day Adventist all of my life has only read the KJV and probably would say any other is incorrect. Are SDA "KJV only" folks? What do you find interesting about them?

I don't know if SDA are KJVers. To address the other question, I think he's saying that he can't help but be interested in the subject because he's surrounded by so many people who propagate the "KJV only" view.

Is the Textus Receptus the "original" that the KJV came from?.

Yes, the TR is what the KJV is translated from. The TR was originally the work of Erasmus (it later went through several revisions over a few decades). He put together the TR (a Greek NT) about a century before the KJV was translated. He based his work on the late medieval Byzantine Greek manuscripts. Unfortunately he didn't have very many of the manuscripts at his disposal. Because he had so few of them there was a small portion of Revelation for which he didn't have any Greek manuscript. He decided to translate that portion from Latin. There are MANY more Byzantine texts that scholars now make use of.

This is fantastic! What is the name of the book? Where can I get it? Thanks so much!

I think I may have this book but it looks like you may need to buy it used. Here's the link:

http://www.amazon.ca/King-James-Bible-W ... 0785280936